Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

Fifty four years ago, on this day, November 5, 1969, Jestyn Phillips, a member of the House of Lords said the following – 

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he and British Railways have taken account of the fact that what were abnormal temperatures last summer may not be abnormal if we continue to discharge carbon dioxide into the air by the burning of various fossil carbons, so increasing the greenhouse effect?

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1969/nov/05/railways-use-of-continuous-welded-rail

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear that some members of the Lords were paying attention to what was being written in newspapers, magazines (including the Listener in April 1969). And the idea of the greenhouse effect was out there and of concern by 1969, including in the Financial Times and so forth. 

What I think we can learn from this

By November 1969, “even” politicians were talking about it, drawing (possibly fallacious) connections.

What happened next

In January 1970 a TV programme “And On the Eighth Day”, directed by Richard Broad, appeared.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Agnotology Denial United Kingdom

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 3, 1990, the normally sane Financial Times published a brain fart of an article

Thomas, David (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory. Financial Times 3 November

There were claims that the IPCC organisers had deliberately excluded strong dissenters, such as Richard Lindzen, Hugh Elsaesser and Fred Singer, from participating in the IPCC. One unnamed scientist went so far as to claim that the supporters of the greenhouse theory ‘behave like Hitler’ by conspiring to prevent critics from publishing their conclusions in leading scientific journals (quoted in Thomas, 1990.)

Paterson, M (1996) Page 45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report had been delivered two months earlier. Since then, there had been fierce contestation of it. And this article in the FT was part of the push back ahead of the second World Climate Conference in Geneva and the imminent start of the climate negotiations. So the FT was wanting to cater to its various members, readers, some of whom would want to doubt awkward physical realities.

Eleven months earlier, Forbes had run a similar piece of nonsense (Link).

What I think we can learn from this

I am not suggesting that the Global Climate Coalition or the British Coal board phoned up the editor of the FT and ordered him to order an underling to write this. That’s not how power works. That’s not how the world usually works, 99.99 times out of 100. 

What happened next

The FT stopped being quite so fucking useless on climate change. It’s currently quite good (especially when they publish my letters).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

Sixty four years ago, on this day, November 1, 1959

,“The first section of the M1 motorway, the first inter-urban motorway in the United Kingdom, is opened between the present junctions 5 and 18, along with the M10 motorway and M45 motorway.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been an enormous boom in car ownership after the second world war. These were becoming necessities for many people, as out of town developments sprung up. They were also a sign that you had “made it” and a symbol of freedom, modernity, etc. And of course, with all of the branch chain lines getting a “Beeching” that pushed people into cars. But driving down country roads is risky and slow. Therefore, “I know, let’s have motorways modelled on the US Highway System.”

“

“What I think we can learn from this

When you do “bottom up” decision-making and you cater to the individual rather than aggregate demand, you get perverse infrastructure like motorways, which is hostages to fortune. And then you just keep building and keep building. You get induced demand, the easier you make it for people to drive, the more they will drive. But at the same time, if you don’t have bypasses around congested town centres, it also goes tits up… See also The Standard Oil, Firestone rubber GM conspiracy 

What happened next

You get the Buchanan Report, you get growing concerns about air quality and what is being done to town centres. And all of this feeds into concern about the loss of wildlife and the planet getting paved. And you see the British environmental movement slowly grinding to life. And of course in the early-mid 1990s the environment movement fighting the motorway movement to a standstill at least for a while. And the emissions climb, and people buy ever bigger cars…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

Forty nine years ago, on this day, November 1, 1974, a senior Civil Servant wrote to the chief scientific advisor about climate research

“In 1974, the Met Office had marked an expanding interest in climate by starting a working party on world climatology, ‘with specific emphasis on climatic change’, under J.S. Sawyer, the Met Office’s director of research” CAB 164/1379. ‘Climatology’, Smith to Warren, 1 November 1974. Sawyer had written tentatively on anthropogenic global warming in 1972: J.S. Sawyer, ‘Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse” effect’, Nature 239 (1972), 23-26.

Agar 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “climatic” change – whether caused by man or natural fluctuations – was on the agenda of those who had to worry about the future as part of their day jobs. National Security Adviser and noted war criminal Henry Kissinger had made a speech to the UN General Assembly (April 15, 1974), the CIA weighed in with some food shortage. The Limits to Growth people were still around. And, of course, the oil shock was doing very interesting things to people’s economies and livelihoods. So the idea of setting up a working group to look at climatic conditions was not surprising.

[It would be interesting to know what the terms of reference particularly but I then would need to do that I wouldn’t need to go and look at the archives myself.] 

What I think we can learn from this is that the wheels of bureaucracy grind – it takes time to get anything to happen. And always, always watch for the terms of reference.

What happened next

Eventually, by various means, and against Met Office resistance, an interdepartmental committee on climate started meeting in 1978. It produced a report, which Margaret Thatcher then ignored…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 31, 2018 – Extinction Rebellion makes its declaration of rebellion

Five years ago, on this day, October 31, 2018, XR gathered in Parliament Square…

Declaration of Rebellion parliament square XR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6hVZVJwM50

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UK climate movement had basically been evaporated. After Copenhagen, the implosion of the Climate Camp, the revelation of the undercovers, the NGOs, having a budget crisis and not being able to do any real campaigning on legislation, because you never know if you’re going to be that far from an election (i.e. the Conservative government had made some very effective laws minimising the ability of NGOs to speak the truth or to campaign and this is one of David Cameron’s forgotten legacies). 

There were, of course, very successful environmental campaigns – fracking was stopped. But over all, on the climate issue per se, nobody was reclaiming any power.

So into that vacuum came Extinction Rebellion, which had been promulgated earlier that year. I remember having seen stickers with the angular hourglass on lampposts in Manchester from the summer onwards.

The timing was brilliant, because it had been a very hot summer, and the IPCC 1.5 degrees report had finally come out.

What I think we can learn from this

Organisations which benefit from exploiting a vacuum often get high on their own supply. They feel that they don’t need to pay attention to the rest of the actors in the ecosystem, because those actors have, by definition, failed. So the tone is very exuberant, it’s very emotion-based. It relies on ever greater amounts of publicity, hope and hype. And it is, in every sense, unsustainable. And so it came to pass with XR, which has splintered into tiny local actions and endless begging emails, while the energy is in its off-shoot, “Just Stop Oil”.

What happened next

Extinction Rebellion occupied some bridges with the agreement of the Met and in 2019, held wildly, quite, “successful” – depending on your metrics “rebellion.” By the end of 2019, it was clear that the moment was passing. The pandemic has helped to paper that over, but now what we’re left with is well, the hardcore of Just Stop Oil, while the rest of the climate movement has not revivified.

And here we are.

See also, my Conversation piece about “what next for XR”

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 24, 2003, the last flight of the white elephant known as Concorde took place. The loss of a plane upon take-off in Paris had been the last nail in the coffin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a disaster with a Concorde that had crashed while taking off at Orly because something had fallen off the previous plane and got spat into a fuel tank. But longer term Concorde has always been a prestige vanity project. It had never made money. 

What I think we can learn from this

Well, the history of Concorde is intimately tied to the history of atmospheric science, and indeed, the birth of the modern environmental movement because of concerns over sonic booms, and ozone depletion (the late 60s and early 70s are full of this). And you could argue, I think with just cause, that the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank in the United States really came into existence because of the successful defeat of SSTS by Congress, following a battle against supersonic air travel by American environmentalists, etc. 

More broadly it’s the 20 year anniversary, so there might be some “think pieces” about the retreat from technology and human optimism no longer being a thing, shrinking from our Promethean heritage and duties, because people can knock out for one and a half 1000 words about this crap easily enough.

What happened next

Well, there’s always new planes on the drawing board. They’re lighter and faster and all the rest of it, apparently. But not supersonic. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

Fifty two years ago, on this day, October 8, 1971, former Junior Minister Lord Kennet decided to push back against the “carbon dioxide is definitely not an issue to worry about” line coming from John Maddox, then editor of the journal Nature.  Kennet had, in 1968, been the first UK politician (afaik) to talk about the possible problem of climate change. Here’s an excerpt from Kennet’s letter.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Maddox, the editor of Nature, had been consistently smearing those who raised environmental concerns. Wayland Young, aka Lord Kennet had been an effective minister in the last Wilson government, and was quite right in what he said here.

This was in the context of the British state having a new Department of the Environment and preparing its international negotiating position ahead of the Stockholm conference it was a member of the Brussels group to slow things down

 (Also see that Maddox had been schooled by Ian Martin of Thames Television on 28th of February 1970. Ian Martin had essentially been talking about “wicked problems” and “post-normal science”, but these terms did not exist yet.)

What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re the editor of a Big Scientific Journal doesn’t mean you don’t need to be taught about how the world actually works by politicians and television executives. Of course, you’ll refuse to learn …

What happened next

Kennet continued to work on environment stuff including water pollution. Maddox wrote a book called The Doomsday syndrome in 1972, and turned out loads of articles and speeches dismissing the greenhouse effect all through the 70s and 80s. And as late as 1988, after Jim Hansen and Steve Schneider spoke up he was still chiding them.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

Forty-five years ago, on this day, October 4, 1978, senior UK civil servants and scientific advisors began a short bunch of meetings…

“The Interdepartmental Group on Climatology (IGC) first met on 4 October 1978. Its task was to specify a research programme that might answer long-term questions about climate change, while keeping national programmes co-ordinated with the rapidly expanding international projects, such as those of the European Economic Community (EEC) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as well as research in the USA.”

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the British state had been aware of potential climate change for a very long time. By 1967 the issue was cropping up on television. A junior minister, Lord Kennet, had written a crucial memo in July 1968, and the first Environment White Paper mentioned carbon dioxide as a potential problem. But Met Office Supremo John Mason had managed to slow things down despite the best efforts of various civil servants and scientists. Eventually though, an interdepartmental committee was formed.

What I think we can learn from this is that the British state response was this weak at this time. Though to be entirely fair, there was a lot going on in terms of industrial unrest, Northern Ireland the IMF crisis you name it. The 1976 drought could be dismissed as a one-off, of course

Interdepartmental committees are going to follow the usual lowest common denominator trajectory, with big departments able to act as a veto on anything they don’t like and small departments knowing that and seeing no point in rocking the boat…

What happened next

The interdepartmental committee report, which was pretty weak, was not released until after the change in government. Members of the Conservative cabinet of Margaret Thatcher almost just filed it away without it even being seen.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Manchester United Kingdom

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 21, 1993, the well-meaning but being-used people running the “Partnerships for Change” summit defended themselves from attack.

MANCHESTER, England — Organizers of a world environment summit designed as a sequel to the Rio Earth Summit Tuesday dismissed criticism that the international conference was producing more hot air than hard results.

Conference chairman Martin Holdgate defended the goal of the Partnerships for Change summit in Manchester, saying its purpose was to find practical solutions to international environment problems.

Haycock, G. 1993. Environment summit not flawed, say organizers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at the 1992 Earth Summit UK Prime Minister John Major had offered to host the follow-up conference. This then got split in two, with the “Partnerships for Change” thing, and then a Global Forum supposed to happen in June of the following year (it almost didn’t). Partnerships for Change was rendered effectively useless because the UNFCCC was ratified more quickly than had been expected and it was therefore obvious that the actual negotiations were going to start relatively soon (as they did in Berlin in March April of 1995).

Fun facts – at this Partnerships for Change someone stole the videotape of John Major’s welcome, and also John Gummer (Lord Deben to you) was herded onto a tram and not allowed off.

What I think we can learn from this – just variations of the circle jerk.

Whether or not any given meeting “achieved” its objectives or not is neither here nor there. It comes down to implementation by social movements and civil society organisations that can monitor implementation. Not got those? Then you are left with the usual boom and bust cycle and So It Goes.

xxx

What happened next –

 is that partnerships to change was quickly forgotten the global forum all so quickly forgotten and the cop process began in earnest.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

References

Categories
Activism Coal United Kingdom

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

Fifteen years ago, on this day, September 10, 2008, Greenpeace who had occupied the Kingsnorth power station were acquitted – a jury found them not guilty.

It’s been a pretty unusual ten days but today has been truly extraordinary. At 3.20pm, the jury came back into court and announced a majority verdict of not guilty! All six defendants – Kevin, Emily, Tim, Will, Ben and Huw – were acquitted of criminal damage.

To recap on how important this verdict is: thedefendantscampaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had ‘lawful excuse’ – because they were acting to protect property around the world “in immediate need of protection” from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/kingsnorth-trial-breaking-news-verdict-20080910

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace activists had been pushing against coal with so-called “CCS ready” status. Climate campers had camped out first at Drax power station in 2006 and then at Kingsnorth in 2008. Just before this acquittal more broadly the Brown government was trying to to get carbon capture and storage technology going partly in order to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that for successful social acceptance of new technology you’re probably going to need environmentalists on board. But it’s not clear to me that they will ever be particular fans of CCS.

What happened next

 The first CCS competition kind of fizzled out in 2011 the second one was abruptly plug pulled in 2015 and then there was a massive work of re sanctifying CCS in 2016/17/18.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..